Cirugía bariátrica de revisión: ¿estamos abriendo la caja de Pandora?

Bariatric Surgical Outcomes in the Elderly: A Comparison Study Between Primary and Revisional Procedures in the United Arab Emirates

PURPOSE

Data reported on comparing primary and revisional procedures in the elderly is still limited. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between primary and revisional bariatric surgery in a cohort of older patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients ≥ 60 years old were divided into two cohorts, primary surgery cohort (PSC) and revisional surgery cohort (RSC). Baseline and perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included (34 PSC and 24 RSC) in the study. Forty-two (25 PSC and 17 RSC) 72.4% were female. The mean age was 64 (± 3.3 years) in the PSC and 65 (± 4.2 years) in the RSC, the median initial BMI was 46.7 and 47.4 kg/m2 (p < 0.848), respectively. The mean hospital stay was (3 PSC vs. 5 RSC, p < 0.022) days. Readmissions occurred in (1 PSC vs. 3 RSC, p = 0.158) patients within 30 days of discharge. Postoperative major complications included (1 PSC vs. 5 RSC, p < 0.0278) patients. Reoperations were reported in (0 PSC vs. 3 RSC, p < 0.034) patients. Patients who underwent surgery for weight management, the initial mean BMI was (46.7 PSC vs. 47.4 RSC kg/m2, p = 0.848). At 12-months post-procedure, the mean BMI was (34.3 PSC vs. 37.7 RSC kg/m2, p = 0.372) and (23.7 PSC vs. 19.1 RSC, p = 0.231) %TBWL. The mean overall follow-up was (12.4 PSC vs. 27.5 RSC, p < 0.004) months, and one unrelated death (cancer) was reported in the RSC.

CONCLUSION

PSC and RSC are effective in the elderly, however postoperative complications occurred more often in the RSC group.

Revisional surgery after restrictive surgery: midterm outcomes of a tertiary center

INTRODUCTION

Revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) is a challenging type of procedure for the surgeons due to its specific morbidity and efficiency. The RBS has a higher prevalence nowadays and this study may help to improve scarce data upon this specific topic.

METHODS

Data from 252 patients undergoing RBS after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) between 2005 and 2019, were analyzed at 2 years of follow up. A subgroup analysis of third procedure was also performed.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity occurred in 35 patients (37%) in the LSG group and 40 patients (25%) in the LAGB group (p = 0.045). At 2 years of RBS, mean weight was 92.8 ± 26.7 kg, BMI was 33.1 ± 8.56 kg/m2 for patients who had RBS after LSG. When RBS was performed after LAGB, mean weight at 2 years was 90.1 ± 20.7 kg and BMI was 32.5 ± 6.45 kg/m2. TWL for RBS performed after LSG was 12.7 ± 16.4% versus 25.5 ± 10.3% after LAGB (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RBS after LSG seems to lead to higher overall morbidity whereas RBS after LAGB lead to more perioperative issues.

Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Following Failed Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding-a Comparison Between One- and two-Stage Procedures, an Israeli National Database Study

PURPOSE

The optimal revisional bariatric surgery procedure following a previous failed gastric band surgery is yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to compare single- and two-stage laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in terms of short- and mid-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent LSG after a failed LAGB in Israel during 2014-2017 were included. Data were obtained from the Israeli National Bariatric Surgery Registry. Data analyzed included comorbidities, postoperative complications, and anthropometric outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 595 patients included in the data analysis, 381 (64%) underwent one-stage and 214 (36%) had two-stage LSG. No differences were observed between the groups in complication rates (5.0 vs. 5.1%, p=0.93). Percent of total weight loss was lower following one-stage than two-stage procedure at both 6 months (19.3±9.3 vs. 21.5±8.1%; p=0.02) and 1 year postoperative (24.9±10.4 vs. 27.8±9.9%; p=0.02). No difference was observed in the percent excess weight loss (51 vs. 56%; p=0.34 and 66 vs. 72%; p=0.38, at 6 months and 12 months postoperative, respectively). In a regression analysis, percent excess weight loss was greater in the two-stage procedure (p=0.02), with no difference in the complication rates (p=0.98).

CONCLUSION

Single-step LSG had a similar safety profile as two-stage LSG following a failed LAGB. Better weight loss was seen following two-stage LSG. Further prospective studies should investigate long-term follow-up after one- and two-stage procedure.